indeed....and thru independent thought one can work out for oneself why one may not like something, despite just what one may hear and read on places like chat forums, tabloids, men in pubs, so on so forth. That can be the way of memes.

For example, i spent all day yesterday reading the whole book of The Dog Listener, whereby i made around 50 notes in the margins throughout the book, which will then be typed up and presented as a review, commentary, and analysis.
And by doing so i have reached conclusions and insights regarding Amichien Bonding which I have not seen on the various critical threads on dogsey. Thus i have noted the common lists of criticisms and accusations leveled toward Jan Fennell are not as evidenced in this book as one would imagine from reading the threads, and are therefore of lesser significance in regards to the criticisms of Amichien Bonding compared to those I have indeed reached by my own full study of this book; therein being many contradictions and weaknesses which, ironically, have been overlooked on the various Jan Fennell critique threads....issues I have never seen mentioned on any of the many threads i have read on a couple of dog forums, anyway.
And i think this has occurred as so many people have formed their ideas and conclusions upon second hand knowledge. I too did this, as many years ago, i purchased this book, read 1 and 1/2 chapters, then read 'chat' about her on the internet, neglected the book, then actively added my own name to this chatter by waxing lyrical far and wide on the topic of Amichien Bonding and Jan Fennell, when I was not really as yet fully informed enough to do so, thus my own previous chatter was not really much more than that, chatter, with all the lack of credibility this can imply.

I now feel my previous criticism of Jan Fennell to be invalid, but now i feel i am informed enough to add proper critique.

Just an example

I'm looking forward to my next appointment to address Cesar Milan's book in the same manner

Interesting point - and i also only got a couple of chapters into the book, what I read was enough for me, but I might give it another try when I get a chance

[QUOTE=Krusewalker;2523092

For example, i spent all day yesterday reading the whole book of The Dog Listener, whereby i made around 50 notes in the margins throughout the book, which will then be typed up and presented as a review, commentary, and analysis.
And by doing so i have reached conclusions and insights regarding Amichien Bonding [/QUOTE]

But take 100 other readers, and they will have reached 100 other conclusions. We (as a species) come to conclusions in a very subjective way. We are selective and we make our own associations - we read meanings into phrases and words that are based on our own experiences and understanding.
My understanding of La Fennel is that she has a degree in human psychology. I would therefore expect her book to read well. She cleverly appeals to common misconceptions about animals - that they `respect` us. That they `know` what we want. Because most humans have little experience of animal, other than the very verbal human one.

I didn't have to read JF's books, I have the misfortune to live in the same area as her & met her several times in person whilst she was"dog listening"in the early days.

Also I had the misfortune to watch her handle her show Alsatians on the cheesewire chokers & strung up so that the judges could go over them.

She waxed lyrical on our local BBC radio weekly offering to call people back to "help"their animals(& of course then enrolling them in having her paid services)& giving the usual"size fits all"methods.

She told me personally that she was the first person ever to use food rewards in training !!! Hm something I had been shown over 30 years before she came on the scene.

Oh dear I can't volunteer. Discrimination as they will only take people from the UK

[QUOTE] that was exactly my point. read and learn for yourself, dont just rely on a chat forum.

in my case, i made a very thorough academic study of her book, and noted down many questions, and observed passages in one chapter which would contradict similar passages in another chapter. i will be collating writing up my notes as a commentary and review.
this is a much better way of sourcing an finding out why something may be very good instead of just relying on internet chat forums or blogs...for any reason and any topic, really.

something like literature and social sciences which covered freud and pavlov etc, i think.

personally, i think that doesnt matter, i would not use that as a criteria to determine whether or not the book reads well . i think either possibility is equally likely if you have a degree. her book does read well, but i think that comes down to her nature as a good presenter,and her natural enthusiasm.

there isnt a section in the dog listener which i just read and studied tues this week whereby jan fennell states that the dogs ´respect us and therefore know what we want'. the book about them not understanding what we want, as we expect certain things, yet according to JF, we communicate the opposite message that tells them that we should only show respect to them as "the leader".


although i am enjoying this new angle building on from my first post on this thread, just to say that this last paragraph isnt related to the observation of my first comment to tanguitica

NB: late nite typos, to tired to fix

Your accounts of your personal experience are very valuable and pertinent, so they would inspire me to investigate further for myself, read her books for myself, research her more for myself. Your comments would not inspire me to merely cease at your comments or others like them as regards if and when and how i would form an opinion of her.
Such things i did once, but i now realise that is an unreliable and uninformed way to form an opinion upon any topic.

For one thing, such viral spread of ideas is what has created memes, a phenomenon that has found its natural home in the internet, which is no surprise, if one were to consider that the functioning of the internet does itself lend itself to the characteristics of a virus.

For example, stepping back and taking your comments above on aboard, the validity of them aside, now i have made a full study of her book, i can reply thus:
1)she does indeed tell how she used to show dogs and use old fashioned methods like choker, and how she went thru a personal process of evaluating herself and such things. many people on here have recounted similar stories in their personal developments as dog trainers.
2) she fully recounts her job as a local BBC phone in dog trainer and how she advised these people. i should imagine she did enroll these people as clients and indeed they did pay her for her services. as that was her job, so of course they pay her, just like anyone really.
3) i have read this comment many times before whereby someone says that Jan Fennell says she invented 'treat training'. of course, this could be true, of course i believe you had this conversation, and i would not be surpised if such a comment was made. however, i am not privy to the context or actual wording of this comment, so i would bracket this anecdote under my earlier heading as one of the list of common comments you see made about Jan Fennel on dog chat forums. But now i have read the book, she has not made that claim in The Dog Listener, yet she did make the comment toward the end that she did not come up with a unique new system, and that some of her ideas where already in existence elsewhere.
4) Similarly, the one sixz fits all common statement that comes up as regards JF. This was a favourite of mine, which i also used. Yet, now i have read the book, its not that black and white. Indeed, the 'Four Elements' of 'Amichien Bonding' are the same for all dogs she dealt with, but these are enacted first as the foundation upon which she then employed other techniques. I was surprised to discover that these techniques were quite acceptable and popular ones shared by many other trainers and behaviourists, including those on here, such as myself. Some of her refinements and rationale of these are what i found a bit whack. She does write several times how dogs are individuals and you cant have the same approach for all of them.

These are points of several pages of observation, assessment, and commentary i have made upon this book, and will be collating as one project as soon as i can.

I read the book so many years ago that I have forgotten most of the content, while remembering that I was not impressed and the story of the "adopted" wolf in to the group "because it ignored the aggression" disregarded all the background of that exceptional situation of which she was either ignorant, or that she choose not to relate as it would have revealed her theory for the rubbish it was.

However I do remember her on one of her TV programmes talking about "ignoring" a behaviour while holding the dogs collar in such a way as to twist it tightly while preventing the dog from moving.

The only element of" ignoring" was looking the other way while she did it, although I got the impression that was to try to lead the owner and viewer's eyeline away from what she was actually doing.

Is it apparent that I am not a fan?

AS for CM getting on the anti BSL/pro Pitbull bandwagon, to be fair, whatever can be said about anything else he does, he has been keeping and championing Pits for a very long time.

She was showing her Alsatians at the same time as being on the Radio, so was telling people one thing & doing another herself,

She was never employed by the BBC Radio Humberside, she was a unpaid guest on a phone in program(been on the same progarm myself-not about dog stuff tho) & it wasn't as a dog trainer it was as a behaviourist for all animals, she had not given her method of dog training the"Amichien"name, also she ended up not being on anymore because all the people she called back(whilst using the Radio Stations phones)were told their problem could only be sorted by using her paid for services & sometimes visiting the people with pet problems & forgetting to mention she would be charging them !! It was & still is totally against the BBC rules to use one of their community programs to get work & money for their business.

Her TV program(not on the BBC-was on Channel 5)showed her for exactly what she is. Especially when she "cured"an aggressive dog-which was later PTS after attacking one of the owners.

Her conversation with me was in public & was at an question & answer session. I asked her re treats & training & she said outright that no one had used this with dogs before her-so when I queried this she went on to the next person !!

the new alpha wolf story was interesting, and one she related to draw attention to another incident between 2 dogs aggressive toward each other. yet their was no obvious correlation between the two, and she didnt explain why they did correlate. it didnt appear to make much sense.

i would have to see the documentary for myself that she kept referring to. do you know what it was called.
even better, do you know where i can read a study about the reintroduced pack in yellowstone park and this actual incident?

holding and twisting the collar of a reactive dog she also explained thru a case study in her book for a dog that was all guns a blazin' in the back of a traveling
car.

i agree - cesar milan, i think, has always been genuinely anti-BSL, i dont think one can accuse him of bandwagon jumping on that issue.